Paedophile party allowed to run for election

Started by eggmayo20 pages

Paedophile party allowed to run for election

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1822972,00.html?gusrc=rss

The Netherlands cemented its reputation as Europe's most socially liberal country yesterday when a new political party formed by paedophiles was told it could contest this year's general election.

A Dutch court rejected an attempt by anti-paedophile campaigners to ban the Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity party (PNVD), which wants to cut the age of consent from 16 to 12 and to legalise child pornography. "The freedom of expression, the freedom of assembly and the freedom of association should be seen as the foundations of the democratic rule of law and the PNVD is also entitled to these freedoms," the court in The Hague said in a statement.

Article continues
The court declared that curbs on freedom of expression could only be applied where public order is at risk. "They [opponents of the party] only want to give expression to their moral concerns. That is far from being sufficient to outlaw a party. It is up to the voter to give a judgment on the arguments of political parties," Judge H Hofhuis was quoted by the Dutch news agency ANP as telling the court.

The ruling will be seen as a powerful example of the Netherlands' liberal approach to social issues. The country has famously relaxed views on soft drugs, prostitution and gay marriage.

The paedophile party will be free to stand in November's general election if it meets the usual requirements of submitting a list of candidates and providing the signatures of at least 500 supporters.

The court's decision angered the anti-paedophile campaign group Solace, which brought the case, and whose views appear to be widely reflected in Dutch society.

No Kidding, a group campaigning for children's rights, called on the Dutch government to act against the party. "Dutch citizens must make their voices heard if we do not want to sacrifice our children to paedophile interests," it said.

The new party, which was formed in May, pledged to intensify its campaign to remove the taboo on paedophilia which, it claims, has worsened in the past decade after the arrest of the notorious Belgian paedophile Marc Dutroux. In his most notorious crime, Dutroux kidnapped and imprisoned two young girls and starved them to death.

Marthijn Uittenbogaard, the chairman of the new party, was quoted by ANP as saying: "We expected to win. We are not doing anything criminal so why should you ban the PNVD?"

The new party wants to legalise the possession of child pornography and to allow pornography to be shown on daytime television. Violent pornography would be allowed after the evening watershed, young children would receive sex education and youths over the age of 16 would be allowed to appear in pornographic films. Sex with animals would also be allowed by the party, although abuse of animals would remain illegal.

Such ideas have proved too much for 82% of the Dutch population, who want the government to outlaw the party according to a recent opinion poll. Publicity for the party last month provoked such a backlash that one of its founders had to flee a caravan park after receiving threats.

The reaction against the new party comes at a sensitive moment in Dutch history. The difficulty of integrating many members of the country's Muslim population has prompted even mainstream politicians to call for immigrants to be denied citizenship if they do not accept the country's liberal values.

Rita Verdonk, the country's immigration minister, recently caused controversy by saying that aspiring Dutch citizens should be shown a DVD highlighting Dutch liberal values. Muslims complained that this was targeted against them because it featured a gay couple kissing.

The general election was called after the coalition government collapsed in a row linked to the debate on Muslims. The small centre-right D66 party withdrew from the coalition after Ms Verdonk stripped Dutch citizenship from (and then restored it to) Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born former MP who is one of the country's sharpest critics of radical Islamists and is now to emigrate to the US.

Re: Paedophile party allowed to run for election

Originally posted by eggmayo

Everyone should have the right to give their bodies to the person who they are in love with. To deny a person the right to not use their body in the way they want to is to deny that person of their self existence.

A good decision in my opinion. Free elections should mean free elections...and at least in the Netherlands it seems they do.

What is the point on having a pedophile political party anyways?

Originally posted by Arcana
What is the point on having a pedophile political party anyways?

To vote for it to make paedophilia acceptable?

Originally posted by Bardock42
To vote for it to make paedophilia acceptable?

I suppose... but it still seems... weird.

Originally posted by Arcana
I suppose... but it still seems... weird.

Yeah, I guess it does, but also very free.

Heh if anyone tried to get that passed over here in the USA... there would be riots.

Originally posted by Arcana
Heh if anyone tried to get that passed over here in the USA... there would be riots.

Possibly. Sad though.

Originally posted by Arcana
Heh if anyone tried to get that passed over here in the USA... there would be riots.


Thank goodness.

And thank goodness people in the Netherlands are opposed to it.

Yes, yes, I know, Constitutional rights, freedom of whatever. I'm the bad man for opposing it. Frankly, I don't care. To lower the age of consent to 12 years old and to legalise child pornography is too much. Even one of those is too much.

Don't you want to leave it to the voters rather thsan the mob to say that, though, Feceman?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Don't you want to leave it to the voters rather thsan the mob to say that, though, Feceman?

Well, no. There are some things that I would gladly leave to voters. Something such as this...I could not in good conscience agree to leave it to the voters (were there a chance of it passing, that is).

Ah, so you don't belive in democracy?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Ah, so you don't belive in democracy?

I believe in democracy. Just like I believe in superstition. Do I trust democracy to do what is right?

Now that is the question you should be asking.

No it isn't. The question I should be asking is whether you believe modern countries should be democracies or not.

Your call there to reject people's democratic right to choose a party is tantamount to totalitarianism and is completely at odds with any moral political system. It is not for you- or indeed, anyone- to make comment on what is 'right' for the people of a democracy to do other than to elect Governments. You can then judge whether the Government is right or wrong, but the first principle is that it is democratically chosen without bar or restraint. And if you want a system where there are such restraints, than you are delusional to say that you believe in democracy.

Let this silly party be punished at the polls. That is many orders of magnitude more sensible than banning it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Ah, so you don't belive in democracy?

Democracy means.."way of the people."

Whatever laws people agree to in a democracy, then that means those are the laws that should be used.

Majority rules in a democracy, so it doesn't matter what the minority thinks as much.

People who are "paedophiles" should have the right to express their beliefs, and act on them if the laws allow them to.

The children who get to have sex with the adults after after laws have been passed removing consensual age limit for sex, will have to wait until they are old enough to form a party to express their beliefs in the politicol system, because they are not mature enough to be able to make decisions regarding the laws.

No, the majority does not rule in a Democracy. The majority simply chooses who rules. It is different.

We aren't talking about a referendum here. We are talking about political election.

Hmmm. Free speech in action. I guess, that as long as they are not doing anything illegal, they have every right to express their beliefs - after all, it is only a crime to act.

And I think it could be good, I can just imagine the look on the pedophile parties face come election night when they find out that, beyond their own party, virtually nobody voted for them. That should wake them up.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, the majority does not rule in a Democracy. The majority simply chooses who rules. It is different.

We aren't talking about a referendum here. We are talking about political election.

Yes it does, what do you think happens in a popular election in the states, the presidential candidate who gets a majority of the vote in each state gets all of the votes of the electoral college in the state that they've won the popular vote in.

Anyway, as i said before, children are too young to make politicol decisions, so that's why the adults need to make those decisions for them. If it is determined by the law that the consensual age limit to have sex should be abolished, then the children will have to express their beliefs on the matter when they (edit) become mature adults, and they can vote on legislation that reinstates this consensual age limit.

I suppose you are right, Ushgarak.